2016-08-03 10:56 GMT+02:00 Ben Coman <[email protected]>: > On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Esteban Lorenzano <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I will just re-post my first answer: > > > > if reintroduce them means reintroduce them hardcoded as before, then I’m > > complete against it and I WILL NOT integrate such solution. > > I’m sorry for being so strong here, but previous implementation was lame > and > > we need to get rid of them. > > > > Now, I understand people are used to use those bindings and also some > others > > (no idea which ones because I never used them… for me ocompletion is good > > enough… but those are tastes). So I would be very happy to integrate a > > generic way to define keybindings and outputs (which is already there, > with > > keymapping, but I mean an editor or something), and I would be very > happy to > > integrate a default configuration (which of course, will include > > #ifTrue:/##ifFalse:) > > I would guess code expansions could be many and varied between > different individuals, and quickly consume available keyboard > shortcuts. Perhaps a generic mechanism would be single shortcut for > "code expansion" which processes the letters preceding the cursor. > For example, using shortcut <ctrl-e> for code expansion and typing... > > itf<ctrl-e> > > ==> ifTrue: [ ] ifFalse: [ ] > > The could be an interface to define these code expansions - initially > at least on a purely personal basis. > > > And this is not really for adding a new feature. This shortcut already > (always :) ) existed > > With a single shortcut for code expansion, perhaps a few other > existing combinations could be freed up. > > good idea, some kind of template expansion with user defined templates.
> cheers -ben > > > > > Esteban > > > > On 03 Aug 2016, at 10:30, Denis Kudriashov <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > 2016-08-03 10:27 GMT+02:00 Guille Polito <[email protected]>: > >> > >> I'm also against. > >> > >> - They take a place in the shortcuts that prevents others to use it > >> - If lazy people really needs this, the code completion should be > >> enhanced. This is a code completion concern... > > > > > > +1 > > > > > >
